Madras High Court

P.Suresh vs The District Collector on 10 October, 2022

                                                                                       W.P.No.16944 of 2017

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED : 10.10.2022

                                                            CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                   W.P.No.16944 of 2017

                     P.Suresh                                                    ... Petitioner

                                                              Vs.

                     1.The District Collector,
                       Udhagamandalam,
                       Nilgiri District.

                     2.The Divisional Engineer,
                       Construction and Maintenance,
                       Highways Department,
                       Udhagamandalam,
                       Nilgiri District.                                         ... Respondents


                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to appoint
                     the petitioner in any suitable post of the 2nd respondent's office under the
                     compassionate grounds.


                                      For Petitioner            : Ms.R.Sindhu
                                                                  For Mr.A.Ilangovan

                                      For Respondents           : Mr.S.Balamurugan
                                                                  Government Advocate


                     Page 1 of 15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                        W.P.No.16944 of 2017


                                                            ORDER

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 2nd

respondent to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate

grounds.

2. The father of the writ petitioner Late Mr.P.Pandurangan was

employed in the Office of the 2nd respondent in Construction and

Maintenance Highways Department and died on 19.08.2003, while he was

in service. The petitioner submitted an application on 28.11.2007 beyond

the period of three years and thus, the authorities have not considered the

application as not maintainable. The application seeking appointment on

compassionate ground has to be submitted within a period of 3 years from

the date of death of the deceased employee as per the terms and conditions

stipulated.

3. Scheme of compassionate appointment has to be implemented

strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated.

Compassionate Appointment Scheme, being a concession, cannot be

extended after a lapse of many years. The very purpose and object of the

Scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising claimed as an absolute right.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16944 of 2017

Scheme being an exception, cannot be expanded for the purpose of

providing appointment on compassionate grounds in a larger manner. Large

scale compassionate appointment would result in infringement of the

Fundamental Rights of the eligible citizen, who all are aspiring to secure

public employment through open competitive process.

4. Scheme of compassionate appointment being a concession, to be

implemented in a restricted manner, so as to provide appointment only to

the families, who all are genuinely in penurious circumstances and in this

regard, the authorities competent are bound to conduct field inspections and

ascertain the imminent circumstances, warranting an appointment on

compassionate grounds. It is not as if one appointment is to be granted to

the family of the deceased employee and it is not as if every legal heir can

submit the application and thereafter, the appointment is to be considered.

5. Once an application is filed by any one of the legal heir of the

deceased employee and the said legal heir became ineligible, it is not as if

that other legal legal heir can submit an application irrespective of the

length of time. In the event of entertaining such repeated applications for

compassionate appointment, the very purpose and object of the scheme

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16944 of 2017

would be defeated.

6. The very purpose and object of the scheme of compassionate

appointment is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the

sudden death of an employee. Therefore, the scheme cannot be expanded

nor any consideration is to be shown on misplaced sympathy, which would

result in denial of Fundamental Right to all other eligible candidates, who

all are longing to secure public employment. Thus, the Courts are not

expected to grant compassionate appointment on misplaced sympathy. Such

sympathy would result in unconstitutionality.

7. Scheme being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India, since there is no merit assessment of the applicant and there is no

application of rule of reservation, there is no other assessment is made for

appointment on compassionate grounds. In the event of large scale

compassionate appointment, the efficiency level in the public administration

will also be in stake. The Rule of Reservation, merit assessment and no

other assessment has been made and therefore, the large scale appointments

causing inefficiency in public administration, which would result in

violations of the Constitution provisions, since the Constitution mandates an

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16944 of 2017

efficient public administration.

8. Lapse of time would also provide a ground to draw a factual

inference that the penurious circumstances aroused on account of the

sudden death of an employee became vanished. Thus, Courts have

repeatedly held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after

several years.

9. Even to ascertain the indigent circumstances, the pensionary

benefits are also to be taken into consideration. The Honourable Supreme

Court of India in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Amrita Sinha

in C.A.No.7640 –7641 of 2021 dated 11.12.2021 [(2021) 15 Scale 174] held

in Paragraph No.10 as follows :

“The monthly pension which was payable to the respondent was required to be taken into account in the award of merit points. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that pension is paid for past service rendered by the employee and, hence, denial of compassionate appointment on that basis was not justifiable. This reasoning of the Tribunal is fallacious.

Undoubtedly, pension is not an act of bounty, but

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16944 of 2017

is towards the service which has been rendered by an employee. However, in evaluating a claim for compassionate appointment, it is open to the authorities to evaluate the financial position of the family upon the death while in service.

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. It is provided in order to enable a family to tide over a financial crisis caused by the death of its wage-earner while in service. If the scheme requires that the family pension must be taken into account in evaluating the merits an application, it has to be followed.”

10. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, recently on

05.09.2022, in the case of Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs.

Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union [2022 LiveLaw (SC)

739], wherein in paragraph-8 of its judgment, reiterated the principles to be

adopted for providing appointment on compassionate grounds as under:-

“8. Even otherwise, such an appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement and/or superannuation shall be contrary to the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As observed and held

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16944 of 2017

by this Court in a catena of decisions, compassionate appointment shall always be treated as an exception to the normal method of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds is provided upon the death of an employee in harness without any kind of security whatsoever. The appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic and shall be subject to the strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family. No one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be extended to the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well educated and/or more qualified.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16944 of 2017

11. Even in yet another recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs. NITIN [2022

LiveLaw (SC) 690], wherein in paragraphs 20 and 21, it has been held as

under:-

“20. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality, which enables the dependent family members of a medically incapacitated employee who has no option, but to retire, or a deceased employee, to tide over the immediate crisis caused by the incapacitation or death of the breadwinner. Compassionate Appointment excludes equally or more meritorious candidates, much in need of a job, from the zone of consideration. Consideration for compassionate appointment must, therefore, be strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules for compassionate appointment applicable to the deceased/prematurely retired employee.

21. In this case, there is a financial criteria of eligibility for compassionate appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme.

Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16944 of 2017

and lawful rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute financial distress.”

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The State of

Maharashtra and another vs. Ms.Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since after

marriage Smt.Madhuri Santhosh Koli) [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 820], laid

down the principles as follows:

“5. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704, had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this Court in N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, this Court has summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:-

(i) that the compassionate appointment is an

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16944 of 2017

exception to the general rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;

(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;

(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.

6. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.

6.1 . ... .... ... ... .... .... .....

Govind Prakash Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16944 of 2017

SCC 289.......

                                          “21. ...      ....   ...   ...   ....    ....    .....
                                          “2. ...       ....   ...   ...   ....    ....

As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. ................In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. ...............It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. ........

26. ... .... ... ... .... .... .....

Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis.....

7. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16944 of 2017

public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

7.1. ... .... ... ... .... .... .....

Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a number of years from the death of the deceased employee.”

13. In the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd &

Ors. vs. Anusree K.B. [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 819], the Apex Court held as

follows:

“9. ... .... ... ... .... ....

The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16944 of 2017

over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.

9.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided.”

14. In the present case the writ petitioner submitted the application

beyond the period of three years and thus, it was not considered. That apart,

the petitioner even at the time of filing of the writ petition the petitioner was

aged about 38 years and now he would be around 43 years and over aged.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16944 of 2017

This being the factum, the application submitted at this length of time and

more over the application itself is not entertainbale as it was submitted

beyond the period of stipulated time.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

10.10.2022

Jeni

Index : Yes Speaking order